Kolkata Court July 2003 Judgments
Development Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank of In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC295,(2003)3CALLT632(HC),[2005]126CompCas67(Cal)
Mahemmed Habeeb Shams Ansari, J. 1. Only a few relevant facets need to be stated for the disposal of the instant application filed for injunction restraining the invocation of the bank guarantee.2. The defendant No. 3 (Ansaldo Service Pvt. Ltd.) hereinafter referred to 'ASPL* entered into contract with The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, on December 10, 1998 for construction of a 2 X 210 MW Expansion of the First Thermal Power Project Station at Neyveli, Tamil Nadu.3. Plaintiff (Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as 'DCL' and the defendant No. 2 (U.B. Engineering Limited) hereinafter referred to as the 'UBEL' formed' into a consortium in respect of their two sub-contracts bearing Nos. 229225 and 229226 entered into by and between ASPL and UBEL and DCL. Sub contracts are dated April 15, 1999 and the consortium agreement between UBEL and DCL is dated August 4, 1999.4. UBEL is the leader under the said consortium agreement and pursuant to Clause 14 of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT310(Cal)
ORDER1. The Court : In this reference at the instance of the Department the Appellate Tribunal was directed to prepare a statement of the case and to refer to this Court the following questions viz., -'(i) Whether or not the bar of unjust enrichment will be attracted in a case where duty has been passed on to the buyer of goods not separately as duty but by inclusion in the price as one component of the same?(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the bar of unjust enrichment would not be attracted when the price is inclusive of duties and taxes following the case Cimmco Ltd. reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 246 (Tri)?(iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in passing the order ignoring the principles of law laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries reported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) and the findings of the department indicated in the order-in-original.'2. As will appear from the statement of facts, the respondent herein submitted two Refund Applications ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Developers Private Limited Vs. Peerless General Finance and I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT593(HC),[2005]128CompCas444(Cal),[2004]51SCL204(Cal)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated November 25, 1998 passed by the Company Law Board, Eastern Region Bench at Calcutta in Original Petition No. 15(111)/ERB/1995. The said appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.2. When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, submits that this appeal is barred by limitation. Mr. Sarkar argues that an aggrieved person can file an appeal under Section 10F of the said Act to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order Of the Company Law Board to him; however, the said aggrieved person can obtain extension of time for filing the appeal for a further period not exceeding sixty days provided that he has been prevented by sufficient cause form filing the appeal within the said period of sixty days. Mr. Sarkar argues that the appellant got the certified copy of the orde...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Birendra Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN615
G.C. De, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.77 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balurghat, West Dinajpur in Title Appeal No. 63/1976 affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1976 passed by the learned Munsif, Balurghat in Title Suit No. 92/1973.2. The plaintiff Birendra Nath Sarkar filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 92/73 praying for declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in 'A' Schedule as well as 'B' Schedule of the plaint, for permanent injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiffs case in brief is that the owner of the suit plots was one Kader Bux Mondal who settled the suit plots along with other lands to his sons Abdul Hadi and Abdul Hakim and in the RS records-of-right their names were duly recorded. Thereafter, on the basis of two separate sale deeds executed and registered on 4.3.58, the recorded owners sold the suit property to the present plaintiff and also to Arati Rani Sarkar, and subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Kanailal Hazra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal244
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner felt aggrieved by a decision dated January 9, 2003 (Annexure-'P8'). It was given by the competent authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (in short 'the Board').2. The petitioner passed the Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination) from the Board by appearing at such examination held in the month of March, 1988. On the basis of his own declaration regarding his date of birth, in the concerned certificate the Board recorded his date of birth as November 21, 1969. Long thereafter a certificate of birth dated November 22, 1991 was obtained by him from the authority under The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. In this certificate, on November 1, 1991, his date of birth was registered as December 21, 1973. On the basis of such certificate he applied to the Board for correction of his date of birth recorded in the certificate issued by the Board in connection with his passing the Madhyamik Pariksha in the year 1988. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR243(Cal)
Altamas Kabir J. 1. As the appeal involves a question of law, on consent of the parties the appeal itself was taken up for consideration along with the application for stay of operation of the judgment and order dated June 11, 2003, passed by the learned single judge on the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, being W. P. No. 992 of 2003 (Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) : [2003]264ITR241(Cal) . 2. In the writ petition the appellant-company challenged the decision of the respondents to initiate prosecution against the appellant under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 for the appellant's failure to deposit and/or pay to the credit of the Central Government the tax deducted by the appellant at source, hereinafter referred to as tax deducted at source. By his judgment and order dated June 11, 2003 (see : [2003]264ITR241(Cal) , the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition upon holding, inter alia, that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Pratima Ghosh and anr. Vs. Binapani Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN185
ORDEREDthat the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are hereby set aside and the suit is dismissed on contest without cost. The parties do bear their own cost of this appeal.Samaresh Banerjea, J.32. I agree.Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties expeditiously.Samaresh Banerjea & Gorachand De, JJ....
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ771Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. It appears to this Court that in the earlier occasion a writ petition was moved, being W.P. No. 4120 (W) of 2002 when a Bench of this Court held that there was a violation of condition of the tripartite settlement by the workers in terms of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Government is supposed to make a reference under Section 34 of such Act, which had been done.2. In disposing of the writ petition, the Court held that the appropriate Governmental authority will consider the point and hear out the matter in accordance with law. The Special Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, has passed a reasoned order which is impugned herein. There, the authority has taken a very peculiar stand, namely, when the strike has been called off, subsequently, there is no necessity of adjudication by the Tribunal. But the question germane for the purpose is when there was a tripartite settlement in the public utility service, there should no...
Tag this Judgment!Metallurgical and Engineering Consultant (i) Limited Vs. Jayanta Kumar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN666
Ashok Kumar Mathur, CJ.1. Both those appeals arise out of a common order dated 26th February, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1220(w) of 1999 which was hoard analogously with W.P. No. 16288(w) of 1998, therefore they are disposed of by a common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of both these appeals are that the writ petitioners were employed on contract basis for modernization of Durgapur Steel Plant. In 1994 the writ petitioners along with others filed a writ petition being C.O. No. 20095(w) of 1994 praying for permanent absorption. On 16th September, 1994 the learned Single Judge directed an order of status quo. During pendency of this writ petition on 14th October, 1995 all these writ petitioners entered into the chamber of Mr. V. Shankaranan, General Manager (Modernisation), Durgapur and misbehaved with him. He was kept in confinement in the room and the writ petitioners exhibited their private parts by opening the trousers. The ash tray...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sealdah Cold Storage and Transport L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN67
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. In or about 1947, Bengal Assam Railway authorities (now known as Eastern Railway) granted a licence in favour of the respondents for setting up a cold storage on the railway land at Sealdah Railway Station to facilitate preservation of vegetable and other foodstuff being carried through railway transport. However, no formal agreement and/or specific licence was placed before us. Hence, we are unable to know the terms of the said licence.2. By a letter dated 3rd May, 1947 the Chief Commercial Manager, Bengal Assam Railways (pages 49-50 of the Paper Book) asked the D8/CA to fix the licence fee and forward the structural plan of the said cold storage. Apart from the said letter no contemporaneous record could be produced by either of the parties for our perusal. Accordingly, the cold storage was constructed and the same was inaugurated on June 16, 1948.3. In 1976 enhance rent was demanded by the railway authorities. On 29th September, 1997 the licence was termin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »